old 20" HD2600 or new 20" 9400m?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by nickjf20, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. nickjf20 macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2009
    From reading many posts abut this subject, it has lead me to believe that the new imac refresh has actually downgraded the graphics capabilities and here in the UK has increased in price.
    HD2600 = dedicated
    9400m = integrated
    will adding more ram increase the amount of Vram? (1gb = 128mb vram)

    i can get a refurbed 20" w/256mb vram for £810 whereas the new imac with supposedly worse specs costs £945

    Does anyone know what the actual upgrade was if any? not downgrades!!
  2. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    being discussed

    In short, the 2600 is a lot faster.

    If you're interested in a 20" imac, pick up one of old 2.66 models as a refurb or on clearance.
  3. nickjf20 thread starter macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2009
    Thanks for the information. :D
    Looking for ages ;)
    Anyway, im sure that they wouldnt have just introduced a more expensive, worse specced computer into the market,
    WOULD THEY? is it really past apple?
  4. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    well hang on. It's not more expensive for worse specs.

    Low end went from:

    20" 2.4 Ghz with radeon 2400xt
    20" 2.66 Ghz with nvidea 9400

    I also think HD went from 250 to 320 and RAM from 1 GB to 2, but don't quote me on that.

    The $1500 mid-range option has gone from:

    20" 2.66 Ghz/2 GB RAM/320 GB HD/Radeon 2600
    24" 2.66 Ghz/4 GB RAM/640 GB HD/nvidea 9400

    So the graphics on the $1500 model are a step backwards, yes. But everything else on both models is the same or an improvement (2400xt and nvidea 9400 are roughly comparable).
  5. Icaras macrumors 603


    Mar 18, 2008
    California, United States
    Also, the new imac is upgradeable to 8 gigs of RAM while the previous model could only go up to 4. Thats a pretty good upgrade as well I would say.

    But beyond that, I'm was also thinking the same thing as the OP. I might have to go for the previous model with 2600HD. Or I could just wait another year and see what Apple does....

    Oh, I don't think I can do this any longer :(
  6. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    good point.

    and the new one uses DDR3 instead of DDR2.
  7. FoxHoundADAM macrumors regular

    Sep 9, 2008
    How much of an improvement is DDR3 over DDR2
  8. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604


    May 28, 2005
    yeah, but it's also after months of progress. You expect the little speed bumps, not mostly speed bumps and one backwards bump.
  9. nickjf20 thread starter macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2009
    With the low end computer, in the UK the top end 20" was the same price as the new 20" is (new is £20 more though) , and as such;

    2.66 - 2.66
    HD2600 - 9400m (bad move)
    2GB standard (new one goes up to 8GB though)

    all in all, i would not be using this for gaming primarily although spore and AOE3 are probably games that would be used on this system.

    It all seems very strange on the pricing but this could just be due to the poor state of the £. :mad: UK :mad: :p
    I have been able to get by now for many years on a computer with 8mb of Vram, but IDVD 2006 has started to become a chore as single 30minute dvd takes all night just to render :eek::eek::eek:
    I have been using a VAIO for AOE3 and BF2142 w/7800GS w/512mbVram but of late this has become slow. VEry SloW indeed, 5fps on BF2142???:eek::eek:

    Anyhows, imacs seemed a good prospect after revamp, but with only an £850 budget (can get 15% tax return) im not happy with apples "revised" low end imac, its worse than its pound for pound counterpart???
    am i missing something ?:confused:

    Thank you for your comments.
  10. nickjf20 thread starter macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2009
    I am definitely sticking to apple hardware due to the great quality. My original 500Mhz tibook has served me well for 9 years now, with it now maxed out w/tiger ilife + work '06. It still works perfectly and gets through itunes the internet + word processing like a charm:D:D:D
  11. nickjf20 thread starter macrumors member

    Jan 2, 2009
    according to the apple website, the 9400m has 2.3x the power of a HD2600 128mb when playing COD4

    Does the difference between the 256mb and 128mb HD2600 make such a big difference in speeds or is it true that an integrated graphics card is actually outperforming a dedicated card?

  12. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    Agreed - it's an underwhelming update - but that doesn't negate my previous comment.

    Yeah because when the last round of imac updates came around, pound was crushing the dollar. Now, not so much. It's not apple's fault it used to be almost 2 to 1 and now it's 1.4 to 1.

    Read more carefully. They claim that the 9400 is outperforming the 2400xt, not the 2600. Big, big difference. (and frankly, macworld's benchmarks show that even apple's actual claim is pretty dubious)
  13. sfroom macrumors regular

    Apr 30, 2008
    It has 2.3x the performance of the 2400 XT, not HD 2600 PRO.

    HOWEVER, the macworld benchmarks shown here show the 9400 being slower than the 2400 XT at some resolutions, so I'm not sure exactly how Apple is performing their benchmarks.
  14. Alex72 macrumors member

    Jul 19, 2002
    Los Angeles
    It's a tough call. Does anybody know if the 2600 will be compatible with all the new graphics-related stuff ("Open CL" I think) in 10.6, the way the 9400m is supposed to be?

    Also, has the OS been tweaked yet to allow hardware h.264 decoding like the 9400m-equipped machines are capable of?

    I'm thinking that if games performance isn't a priority on your iMac, then the newer model might be the one to pick, though I can't be sure and, in fact, would kind of like to see others' input on the subject myself...


Share This Page